Dubya coming to New Albany!

[Robin Garr]

Since this visit is over, I've now moved this discussion into the "All About Louisville" forum to keep the main forum food-related.

It's funny that there are still morons who like to pretend that Clinton had his entire term to deal with al-Qaeda, when their first recorded strikes on American targets are the embassy bombings in 1998, in the middle of Clinton's second term.

Al-Qaeda was not responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing. That is why it's disgusting to compare it to 9/11.

In what way Ron? They were both tyring to achieve the same thing.

The magnitude of human tragedy, not just the sheer number who died the most horrific death imaginable, but also the family members of the deceased left behind.

I am well aware of the right wing's intense hatred for Clinton, but he has been out of office for a long time. You can't keep going back to that well to draw attention away from the amazing blunders of the current administration.

Clinton cheated on his wife, Bush cheated the country.

Is the political discourse really aided by the constant insults thrown back and forth in the debate? It's all over the place on both sides. I just don't understand the point of it. A little moderation can go a long way to getting people to listen to your point of view...

Thank Lee Atwater for that.

While he certainly made less than reputable practices common occurance on the broader political scene, as responsible and intelligent people I think we could easily avoid the slinging around of base insults (both personally and generally). The man's been dead for what, 15, 20 years? I think we can start taking personal responsibility for what we say again.

[quote="C. Devlin"]
The internet email spam about these issues has been debunked and then debunked again as urban legend over the years. A good source for those mass, spammy emails is snopes.com, if anybody's interested.


I have also found Snopes.com to be an excellent resource for researching all types of e-mail forwards, hoaxes, photo manipulations and lots of other general misinformation.

Barbara and David P. Mikkelson started the Urban Legends Reference Pages (Snopes.com) in 1995. They always cite their sources in the articles and encourage you to think for yourself!
(Site Info: FAQs).

What's New, Top 25 Urban Legends, search feature and many categories:
http://www.snopes.com/

I have no interest in promoting the Snopes site but have learned much from it.
But I assume that many smart people on these forums are already aware of Snopes and other credible sources.

I also am grateful for all of Robin's knowledge bases and forums (Wine Lovers Page, Louisville HotBytes, All about Louisville, and Kitchens.)

The civil and intelligent tone of most everyone here is also appreciated. The concise and informative posts (with problem solving as well!) is a wonderful asset to us all.

Cheers!

(And avoid the Kool-Aid and talking points of either party. Write in Stephen Colbert for "preziduhnt" instead.)

While he certainly made less than reputable practices common occurance on the broader political scene, as responsible and intelligent people I think we could easily avoid the slinging around of base insults (both personally and generally). The man's been dead for what, 15, 20 years? I think we can start taking personal responsibility for what we say again.

You are more generous in your characterization of him than his wikipedia entry:

Atwater invented many of the techniques of modern electoral politics, including promulgating reputation-destroying rumors. His opponents have characterized him as the "happy hatchet man"[1] and "the Darth Vader of the Republican party".

I think the baton was passed to Karl Rove on Atwater's untimely death.

Well I didn't know the man personally, and was only about 10 during his political prime. I'm sorry if I wasn't disdainful enough.

Regardless, these are not really the practices I'm addressing here. I'm talking about the level of hateful things said among citizens about each other and their political leanings. What Atwater introduced to the larger political arena surely flowed over into the public conscious and contributed to the practice, but we can and must move past that.

I don't care what politicians say about and to each other. That shouldn't have any effect on the way we as citizens communicate with each other and about each other. Or rather, we shouldn't let it. We should be better than that.

Well I didn't know the man personally, and was only about 10 during his political prime. I'm sorry if I wasn't disdainful enough.

I don't think it was meant as disdain, but as a compliment. Atwater loved his reputation. So, no need to apologize.

[Robin Garr]

I don't care what politicians say about and to each other. That shouldn't have any effect on the way we as citizens communicate with each other and about each other. Or rather, we shouldn't let it. We should be better than that.

At some point, though, Aaron, don't citizens almost have a duty to speak out?

Should citizens in Germany in the 1930s have stood silent as Hitler rose to power? Wait ... unfortunately, they did.

Before anybody flames me for comparing Bush-Cheney to Hitler, I'd argue that it has been a mighty long time since the US has had to weather such a consistent pattern of attacks on civil liberties at home and a war strategy disdainful of world opinion abroad.

Should we really shut up about that because noisy opposition is unpleasant?

Should we really shut up about that because noisy opposition is unpleasant?

I think maybe I've been too vague. No one should shut up. No one should stop protesting. I wanted to avoid specific examples, because I didn't want it to appear I was singling people out. So with appologies to Steve, I'll just use his quote only because it's the most convenient, being on the same page of this thread.

It's funny that there are still morons who like to pretend that Clinton had his entire term to deal with al-Qaeda, when their first recorded strikes on American targets are the embassy bombings in 1998, in the middle of Clinton's second term.

This is the kind of thign I'm talking about. We can discuss both matters of opinion and matters of fact without this level of adversarialism. If someone is wrong, explain to them the facts as you see them. If they continue to disagree, then let them explain their take on the facts which should be offered with a level of understanding that doesn't include insults.

I'm not sure that Aaron is advocating silence as much as civility. The vitriolic screaming tactic is a great way for either side to shut down discourse and it is used as a tool to silence dissent. As Ron alluded the Republicans have honed it to an art form and the Democrats follow the garbage truck. The 3rd party premise that Robert proposes is great until you get to Kentucky. I was also registered as an independent until the no voting in primary elections for either party got old. Many races are decided IN the primary so all independents are basically silenced before the general election. I firmly believe that the majority of people in the country are moderates. We want a balanced budget, fair taxes for services that benefit all society, a strong defense for defense, no pre-emptive wars and a country that respects our rights. Put me in that party please and let me vote.

I may have to do a write in vote for Ed Vermillion.

Should we really shut up about that because noisy opposition is unpleasant?

I think maybe I've been too vague. No one should shut up. No one should stop protesting. I wanted to avoid specific examples, because I didn't want it to appear I was singling people out. So with appologies to Steve, I'll just use his quote only because it's the most convenient, being on the same page of this thread.

It's funny that there are still morons who like to pretend that Clinton had his entire term to deal with al-Qaeda, when their first recorded strikes on American targets are the embassy bombings in 1998, in the middle of Clinton's second term.

This is the kind of thign I'm talking about. We can discuss both matters of opinion and matters of fact without this level of adversarialism. If someone is wrong, explain to them the facts as you see them. If they continue to disagree, then let them explain their take on the facts which should be offered with a level of understanding that doesn't include insults.

I strongly believe that civility is optimal for most political discourse. The exception I make is when someone is either knowingly or ignorantly spreading virulent lies or smears, then I get nasty and I offer no apologies for it.